*sigh* You can lead a horse to an optimized process, but you can't make him apply it. Enjoy wasting your time diving for cover whenever any nuke goes off, while the rest of of snort, "Heh, he thought that was an H-bomb? What a dimwit!"
You say it dismissively, but the big thing lately is that Microsoft can play catch-up and is really trying to do it. Did you ever think you'd see the day? Starting around MSIE 9 they made huge strides toward becoming fairly normal, rather remaining forever obsolete, as a weird, special, anachronistic case. You never would have heard anyone say this in 2009 or 2004 but it now looks like a fresh Windows install might be able to surf the web, right out-of-the-box.
It used to be that if someone had problems and you found out their browser was
Today's web browsers, in general, are pretty damn good. Even Microsoft can do this now.
From a certain point of view, they are huge.
I once read (*) that the full gamma burst from a thermonuclear explosion takes several seconds. (Whereas from a fission bomb, it's mostly over in a fraction of a second; the bigger-yield fusion bombs create a lot of temporary unstable shit that gives off more gamma rays as it decays over several seconds.) This led to me developing a nuclear war survival trick, which I will now share with everyone on Slashdot, even though I haven't tested (**) it yet:
If there's a sudden blinding flash in the sky, quickly try to estimate: does it look like a big one? If so, then dive for cover, preferably behind something big and solid, like a boulder or something like that. HTH.
(*) Wish I could cite a reference, but I'm lazy.
(**) If my trick is no good or based on misunderstood physics, you can make fun of me after the next nuclear war.
IMHO that's an excellent way of looking at it. If the chimp can persuade reasonable people that he can be trusted to not do that, he has a pretty good chance of being treated as though he does have rights. And anyone (chimp or otherwise) who persuades people otherwise, might find themselves being treated as though they don't have rights. (Shame about all the communications problems and other errors that happen in that second scenario, but it
One computer, the fileserver, goes at the "awful location." This is the one that runs all the bandwidth-intense stuff (deluged, sabnzbdplus, etc) so you get to slurp up data at high speeds.
The others, you connect to that as well as you can. They're mostly just going to be running video players or web browsers anyway. It wifi or powerline networking is the best you can do, fine.
The first "online murder" happened the day they put weapons on a drone
Wrong, it's way older than that.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were murdered online. You're worried about the network being used against us, but hundreds of years ago, SciFi authors already went meta and had the network be used to murder a part of itself!
Sorry, but simply by adding "By entering this vehicle you are agreeing to be monitored" is all that is needed.
Today I Learned: writing a stated opinion or prediction causes it to become true! I think I'll put a sticker in my garden, "By entering this garden, it has rained today."
How does this prevent the non-driver from crashing it into a tree?
Take the recording out of the crashed car, to your desktop. Play back the recording up until a point where the car is near the tree. Then quickly hit a seek button that goes to another part of the video where the car is travelling down a safe unobstructed road. Click Save, eject, and then sneakernet the recording back to the car. Insert it and click load.
Obviously, I don't know everything you observed, but 9-5 does not even hint lack of passion.
Already the industry is realizing what it needs to do.
Yep. In the wake of Snowden, people need to feel better. Performing encryption on a computer that you can't trust, is the best of both worlds and gives everyone what they need.
Users will be put at ease, manufacturers can check the "encryption" bullet point, and thanks to the computer working for someone other than the user, various other parties who "need" the data will be able to quietly get the keys without an unpleasant confrontation with the user. Everybody wins.
Except Netflix offers to deliver an entire bakery to the the table.
Yes, one bite at a time. You're not allowed get your second bite of cake onto your fork until you have swallowed your first bite, and you're sure as hell not allowed to have your cannoli on the table until after you have finished your tiramisu.
Say you have a waiter who isn't delivering your individual bites fast enough. Maybe he's legitimately crippled, or maybe he's just a spiteful asshole, but you're stuck with that waiter. What would you do about it? I'd tell the chef wearing the Netflix apron in the kitchen, to send me a whole slice of cake, and let's forget this whole bite, ack, bite, ack, bite nonsense. I'm hungry (and this baking analogy isn't helping!) and intend to minimize the waiter's impact upon my meal.
I suppose I see how using timeshifting to make speed less relevant, has a downside: it removes our incentive to increase performance. Ok, then go ahead and remain vulnerable to networking problems (whether it's due to your ISP being assholes, or because someone else in the house is using the Internet for something else, or whatever) for political reasons, both as a protest and to keep your own passion inflamed (so that you'll stay activist). But when AT&T starts suggesting that bulk video get special QoS, the bluff is starting to get a little too real. There are people taking this idea seriously. That is bad.
It's going to increase your Netflix bills and it's going to increase your AT&T bills. So here is what I suggest instead: take the monthly amount of money that they're taling about increasing your bills by, and spend it once on SSD or spinning rust instead, and stick that storage into your player computer (since apparently it doesn't already have any?!?). Have a download process that writes to files, and a player process that reads from files. Then don't start playing a video until you're pretty sure you're not going to "catch up" to however much has downloaded so far (or if that sounds complicated, then just don't play things until you're finishing downloading them).
You just saved a shitload of money, made it so that your internet speed doesn't really have an effect on whatever video bitrate you use (if you want to use a huge high-res TV at a house with a slow connection, that'll be fine), and now you're more resistant to "weather" (kid in other room's torrents, ISP-ISP and ISP-video_provider contract disputes, etc: all that stuff fades in significance).
What's not to like? Everyone wins except the spiteful waiter, except that even he just got an easier job, even if it's instead of the raise that he wanted.
That'd be a much better rant if Netflix actually, y'know, HAD a dedicated Tivo-like box to store things in. They don't.
I can't figure out if you totally missed my point, or totally got it.
Me: "This dog smells awful!" You: "Your rant would be better, if the dog weren't covered in shit."
I think the idea is that you pay the ISP for a "Netflix booster", and then your Netflix traffic gets un-humped into the fast lane.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the foolishness in one of the highest volume uses of the Internet also being one of the highest priority? That people are thinking of the huge transfers of pre-produced video as being something other than the dead last, lowest priority cheapest-per-byte traffic there is, is totally ridiculous.
The only things that should be "fast laned" (low latency) are VoIP, videoconferencing, interactive terminals, etc: most of which is either low-bandwidth or else niche. If "high priority" is what many peoples' connections are doing several hours per day, then our very sense of "priorities" is fucked up.
I can't say I'm a fan of the ISPs that Netflix is fighting with, but at the same time: Fuck Netflix. Netflix is a case study in how to do video technologically wrong and it seems like they're just totally ignoring common sense. Why shouldn't doing things like a luddite, be relatively expensive? (Really, having storage in your box is still considered prohibitively expensive? It sure wasn't expensive in 2000 with Tivo series 1. Things got worse since then?!?) If the pampered princess insists that her cake be delivered from the kitchen a bite at a time and the commoner just puts a whole slice on his plate and takes a bite at the table whenever he wants it, we expect the princess' servants to be rolling their eyes when she's not looking, embezzeling, etc.
When we have broken up the monopolies and our streets have conduits under them containing a dozen competing fibers, we can re-evaluate the tech from our position of abundance. Maybe video streaming won't be on-the-face-of-it-stupid, then. But that's the future, not today.
So sure, it's easier to hang up on them but you are actually doing them a favor and helping them out by doing so.
No, failure to take hostile action isn't a favor; it's neutrality. Installing their malware would be a favor. I can appreciate those with the time and energy to take fight to this enemy (good on you!), but I have other battles to fight with my (however high) limited anger.
The problem with this enemy, which makes it so hard to care, is how irrelevant they are. So they call people about bullshit, wasting their time. That can be annoying, but there are so many more annoying things.
I suppose some people would say this enemy is worse that that, because the call is just a way of performing a SE attack, but I disagree. I just can't help but get blame-the-victim-y with SE attacks like that. I think many of our society's real problems are caused by SE, much of it legal (e.g. "vote for me, because I'm a member of the correct party," or "believe our religion's dogma, because your parents did") and that we'd all be a lot better off with more "scam antibodies" in ourselves. So part of me hopes these scammers flourish, thereby teaching people to stop being so fucking gullible. Maybe you can't fix stupid, but we can try, and an environment full of con artists is good for that. These assholes are evil, but they're good for us.
No, I'm not fully committed to that outlook (sure, I wanna hurt the bad guys too) but I'm conflicted enough that it evens out. And while we're at it, don't knock lazy! So a position of neutrality, it is.
I have never gotten one of these calls. But I have gotten a few calls like this:
[Phone vibrates. I see the non-local calling number. Reject and block.]
That's the new, lazy version. Until a few weeks ago, I had many of these:
[Phone vibrates. I look at the non-local calling number and wonder who that could be. Google the number and apparently every non-local number that ever calls me, is associated with robocalling. Reject. They call again a few days later. Reject and block. Then a few days later I look at my Visual Voicemail which my shitty Galaxy S4 software never tells me has new entries until I refresh it, and some actual human speech may happen.]
[And I see they left a few messages containing nothing but silence. Delete.]
But that second scenario doesn't happen anymore. Robocallers have successfully trained me.